zadig_build_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a destructive action and additionally reveals the dry-run default and the confirmation requirement, which is genuinely useful safety context beyond just saying 'delete'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and each remaining clause earns its place by communicating safety defaults and requirements. There is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is destructive, has no annotations, and has low schema coverage, so a bit more context is warranted. The description covers the core safety mechanism, but omits project_key semantics and does not fully clarify the relationship between dry_run and confirm (e.g. whether dry_run must be set false to actually delete). Output schema presence reduces the need to document return values, but the description is still thin for a delete operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning for dry_run and confirm, but build_name is only implicitly the build to delete and project_key receives no explanation at all. With zero schema descriptions, this partial compensation is not enough.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action and resource ('Delete one Zadig build') and is not a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling delete tools such as zadig_environment_delete or zadig_build_template_delete, but the target resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies this tool is for deleting a single build and provides the key safety workflow: dry_run defaults to true and confirm needs to be true. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like build update/apply/template delete, and no preconditions beyond the confirm flag.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.